So I misread this as I don't like Monkeys and I had a whole response formulated in my head.

RIP my life.

Woe. Hanover has become a Democrat. — frank

Law and order is generally not a Democrat notion. The police power is considered a legitimate function of the state even to far right Libertarians.

So I misread this as I don't like Monkeys and I had a whole response formulated in my head. — Virgo Avalytikh

Please, please, we all want to read it.

Law and order is generally not a Democrat notion. The police power is considered a legitimate function of the state even to far right Libertarians. — Hanover

"Law and order" is generally a dog whistle for racism, so no, it's not a Democratic thing. Democrats favor enforcing the laws on the books. Republicans tend to have a problem with that, so if you embrace the status quo and therefore speak out of both sides of your face, be a Republican.

But you're going to vote Democrat, aren't you? I can tell.

But you're going to vote Democrat, aren't you? I can tell. — frank

If it'll piss you off maybe.

Democrats are socialists now and Republicans are fiscally irresponsible without many ideas. I choose the latter 99%. The 1% remaining is, like I said, to piss you off.

I don't care either way. I'm 99% determinist. You do what you want, but you can't choose what you want.

I don't care either way. I'm 99% determinist. You do what you want, but you can't choose what you want. — frank

Yeah, well you're just saying that because you have too, not because you believe it. That 1% free will is interesting though. Maybe it gives your life some meaning, but I don't really care because I'm 99% apathetic.

I have a fascinating story about what my dad said about the meaning of life and how drunk he was at the time but I don't want to derail the thread.

So back to mass shootings.

Anyway, you get the idea. Some people, like Hanover, are going to vote for Republicans even though they know that party stands against both gun control (including enforcement of restrictions already on the books) and govt funding for mental health care.

Why? It's a matter of priorities, I think.

:wink:

Anyway, you get the idea. Some people, like Hanover, are going to vote for Republicans even though they know that party stands against both gun control (including enforcement of restrictions already on the books) and govt funding for mental health care. — frank

All Republicans are in favor of gun control. They just arbitrarily draw the line at automatic weapons and say those are just too dangerous to allow for general public use. They also admit that rocket launchers and nuclear warheads are also not Constitutionally protected.

All Democrats allow gun use, allowing BB guns and pellet gun use rampantly.

Since the Constitution doesn't say you have the right to keep and bear arms as long as they aren't automatic weapons or worse, we have to admit that this is all a matter of policy and just deciding where to draw the line. I'm not sure why if I say no more magazines greater than 7 that I'm anti-2nd Amendment, but if you say no more grenade launchers, you're somehow pro-2nd Amendment.

It's all an unprincipled debate centering around how many guns we can push the government to allow. Either I get to protect myself from the oppressive government or I don't, and I don't see how my semi-automatic (AK or otherwise) is going to stand a chance against an armored tank.

I have a fascinating story about what my dad said about the meaning of life and how drunk he was at the time but I don't want to derail the thread. — frank

I'm sorry to hear about your father's alcoholism.

(I have a tendency to go off-topic myself but just a gentle reminder to all to please focus on the OP.)

I have a tendency to go off-topic — Baden

Do you not like Mondays either?

I may have linked this paper once before. — Moliere

I haven't seen it before. Lots of detail I'm not familiar with, but a rather narrow time frame. It almost seems to say that politics causes culture rather than my emphasis the other way, though of course they are not separate.

... social practices are indicative of an emergent and pernicious form of subjectivity, which is here defined as self-defensive. — abstract

I think 'subjectivity' is what I would call 'identity' here, and I would rather say 'self-aggrandising' because the notion of self defence seems more like an advertising slogan than anything real. Demagogues arise when there develops a large gap between the social body and the individual identity - when humiliation is widespread. What one is not supposed to notice is that in reality, people with power do not carry guns, they have expendable others do it for them. Just as industrialists do not work in industry. The cops and the killers are pawns in the same game. The education system produces the school shooters.

I have often wondered about your notions of identity. And I think I begin to understand it here when you would rather substitute(is that the right word?) "identity" for "subjectivity" -- and "self-aggrandising" for "self-defensive".

And I think I understand the notion of self-defense being more of an advertising slogan -- but I will say, as a person in the US who lives in Republicantopia without R sentiments, that "self-defense", as a word, is a thing here that is not like Coke saying "Be happy, fun, and free!". Not that that makes it not-a-slogan, per se -- but it has more cultural weight here. I hope that makes sense.

All that said I think that self-aggrandising, at least as defined by the dictionary, is the appropriate word too. Self-aggrandising is self-defensive, at least in accord with the Chad Kautzer paper I linked.

I want to ask you -- who do you think, in the case of these acts, are the demagogues?

You say that demagogues will arise when therer develops a large gap between the social body and individual identity -- are they the news organization, the people in power, the people on 8tran posting, the imagined people in the actors head, all of the above, or something else?

According to you at least. You are an observer of these things. I'd like to know what someone not-here thinks.

I *think* I agree with you in saying we are not supposed to notice (in a subjective sense, as a normal person) is that the real power doesn't have guns -- but has others do the shooting, or grows others, through education, to do the shooting. I often feel that way about America, at least.

The world is full of random negative consequences where one ought to be safe. That's part of what's known as the human condition. Is it cause for alarm? I think only if you want to live your life hiding out. Solution? Suck it up. Take your chances. Try to be fearless. Most important, try to teach your children to be fearless. Fearlessness is more important than safety. — T Clark

I've not advocated fearfulness as the solution, and it's doubtful that on a day to day basis those who've adopted your viewpoint live any differently than those who are being hysterical, whatever that means. What I've suggested is that the problem be addressed in a meaningful way, and simply declaring that people are going to be shot in the head from time to time doesn't address anything. It just ignores the problem under the guise of bravado. I'm just saying "Houston, we have a problem," which you seem to halfway acknowledge but then go on to say it's not really a problem we have to deal with.

I can't think of any time when hysteria is a sign of health. We're not talking about burying our children. Your children in Atlanta are at no (read infinitesimal) risk from the events in Dayton and El Paso. — T Clark

I'm not sure you're really in a position to tell others how to grieve or to tell them how far removed the murder must be from their immediate circle to care. I realize that El Paso is quite a haul from where I live, but I don't need the murders to occur on the square of my little suburban city to have concern.

Hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of children are afraid to go to school, not because of the risk, but because of the public reaction. As I've said, the current reaction represents a vast misunderstanding of the true risks we, and our children, face in life. — T Clark

You accuse me of misunderstanding the true statistical risks of death when I complain about the recent rise in mass shootings, yet you then present a specious argument that there is some real injury occurring day to day due to the stress and worry kids now have from excessive media reporting of shooting deaths. I mean really, who cares if kids are worried about another mass shooting? It's not like it's affecting their relationships or grades. I'd suspect most kids are doing just as they always did day to day and aren't affected by this media coverage.

If you're going to argue that the media coverage is harmful, you're going to have to show who's really being harmed and how that harm exceeds the harm attempted to be prevented. All I'm hearing is that you're annoyed by it. Suck it up. Deal with the way society reacts to issues. Nobody cares about your feelings. Bravado goes both ways.

This hysteria has led to meaningful changes by the way, some of which likely do curb the violence. Most school districts near me have full time police officers who are assigned to the schools, courthouses have all beefed up security with more metal detectors and greater scrutiny, public gatherings have more officers and more safety checks. It's a whole new world out there reacting to real threats, and I'm thankful we haven't ignored this issue and just allowed the chips to fall where they may.

it has more cultural weight here. — Moliere

Sure, that likeness is in its literal meaninglessness rather than its cultural meaningfulness. This slots right into Orwell's world: "Attack is defence." Compare with "Loreal - because you're worth it." How reassuring to know one is worth a blob of face cream. How reassuring to know that teachers and students carry guns.

who do you think, in the case of these acts, are the demagogues? — Moliere

I meant it quite literally - Trump, Bolsenaro, our own Boris and Farage, etc. But I see them as the natural outcome of Blairite focus group politics where winning power is the only policy: 'Give the people what they want', ignoring that what the people want is invariably a contradiction.

What I've suggested is that the problem be addressed in a meaningful way, and simply declaring that people are going to be shot in the head from time to time doesn't address anything. It just ignores the problem under the guise of bravado. — Hanover

I'm all for addressing the problem in a meaningful way. In my opinion, what I have called an hysterical response makes that less likely and does harm of it's own.

I'm not sure you're really in a position to tell others how to grieve or to tell them how far removed the murder must be from their immediate circle to care. I realize that El Paso is quite a haul from where I live, but I don't need the murders to occur on the square of my little suburban city to have concern. — Hanover

The typical public response to this type of event is not "having concern." It is, as I have said, hysterical, misrepresents the actual risks of this type of event, and may lead to actions that will not make people safer.

You accuse me of misunderstanding the true statistical risks of death when I complain about the recent rise in mass shootings, yet you then present a specious argument that there is some real injury occurring day to day due to the stress and worry kids now have from excessive media reporting of shooting deaths. — Hanover

I have had personal experience with the type of fearful response by parents and children to dangerous events which cause no significant risk to them. Multiply that by millions in this case.

If you're going to argue that the media coverage is harmful, you're going to have to show who's really being harmed and how that harm exceeds the harm attempted to be prevented. All I'm hearing is that you're annoyed by it. Suck it up. Deal with the way society reacts to issues. Nobody cares about your feelings. Bravado goes both ways. — Hanover

I'm not annoyed, I'm embarrassed. It makes the US look like a bunch of chooches. Our inappropriate and pointless reactions fill people who wish us ill with glee. It shows just how effective that kind of action really is. I'm also disgusted that public institutions encourage this type of reaction. It's not "bravado" it's the expectation that we should act like grownups.

I am dealing with how society reacts to issues - I'm expressing my opinion, even if you don't care about my feelings.

This hysteria has led to meaningful changes by the way, some of which likely do curb the violence. Most school districts near me have full time police officers who are assigned to the schools, courthouses have all beefed up security with more metal detectors and greater scrutiny, public gatherings have more officers and more safety checks. It's a whole new world out there reacting to real threats, and I'm thankful we haven't ignored this issue and just allowed the chips to fall where they may. — Hanover

I'm all for reasonable responses. I'm not sure if I think the ones you list are all necessary or not, but I won't quibble about that. There are other types of responses which are being considered, e.g. allowing teachers and adult students to carry firearms on campus, that will probably cause more harm than good.

The typical public response to this type of event is not "having concern." It is, as I have said, hysterical, misrepresents the actual risks of this type of event, and may lead to actions that will not make people safer. — T Clark

I guess I'm looking for the examples of bad responses to the shootings. The usual response I've seen is sadness, crying, anger, maybe a prayer vigil, some speeches from frustrated citizens, some promises by politicians, and then beefed up law enforcement at public places and events and even some greater vigilance in locating the next attacker. They seem to follow a fairly logical pattern, moving from emotion to ideas to thwart future attacks. Emotion moves people to action. That's why its called what it's called.
It's not like people run into the streets screaming and yelling torching cars and breaking windows.

I guess I'm looking for the examples of bad responses to the shootings. The usual response I've seen is sadness, crying, anger, maybe a prayer vigil, some speeches from frustrated citizens, some promises by politicians, and then beefed up law enforcement at public places and events and even some greater vigilance in locating the next attacker. They seem to follow a fairly logical pattern, moving from emotion to ideas to thwart future attacks. Emotion moves people to action. That's why its called what it's called.
It's not like people run into the streets screaming and yelling torching cars and breaking windows. — Hanover

Well, for one particularly egregious example of a bad reaction to mass violence, following September 11, 2001, blind outrage and indignation ultimately lead to an unnecessary war in the middle east which caused tens of thousands of lives, destabilized the politics and security of the region, and finally caused significant damage to the security of Europe. It severely damaged the national security of the US and our friends.

That's a debate I don't feel like having. It reopens the whole discussion of whether Bush sold the war as responsive to 9-11 as opposed to it being the result of Iraqi refusal to submit to inspections and whether the whole war was based upon false claims of Iraqi WMD. It's not analagous to what you were referencing regarding citizen hysteria. Bush and Chaney were not responding to hysteria. They methodically plotted.

As to the actual security changes following 9-11, there were many, all of which have resulted in much greater safety than we'd have without.